By Chiara Parisi, Patrick Murphy, and Richard Knecht
California’s landmark $4 billion investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) is currently in full swing. The program not only allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to allocate resources to student offerings, such as early education, expanded learning, and integrated student supports, but it also focuses on transforming their overall functioning. This includes fostering a positive school climate, promoting student and family engagement, and implementing shared leadership practices.
As part of an ongoing series, the Opportunity Institute published an initial post detailing which LEAs benefited from the first round of CCSPP grants. Subsequent posts delve into how applicants planned to spend their first round planning grants, first round implementation grants, and second round planning grants. The most recent installment in the series sheds light on the underrepresentation of rural schools in the CCSPP, prompting a closer examination of the program’s reach and impact.
This post will specifically look into the CCSPP allocations to county offices of education (COEs) intended to support “coordination”. It will explore the purpose of these allocations, identify which counties received them, and detail how much each county has been granted. Furthermore, the post examines how these allocations align with existing initiatives that also encourage coordination and describes best practices for maximizing the impact of the allocated CCSPP funding.
What are county office of education “coordination allocations”?
Allocations have been distributed to COEs to foster the coordination of partnerships between county government agencies and community-based nonprofit organizations to support community schools. According to the legislation, the allocations should contribute to supporting grant recipient communications with county-level governmental partners that can assist with practices like healthcare service billing. COEs should support LEAs in integrating other state-funded initiatives that are integral to the four pillars of community schools, such as expanded learning or behavioral health grants. The legislation also mentions the appointment of a county-level “community schools liaison” meant to coordinate with the California Department of Education and technical assistance centers in capacity building, resource connection, and continuous improvement activities.
These funds are separate from the funds eight COEs received through competitively awarded Regional Technical Assistance Center (R-TAC) grants. While coordination allocations are primarily designed to bolster partnerships with government agencies, the integrated support systems pillar of community schools, R-TAC grants are meant to provide broader implementation support to LEAs and schools that received CCSPP grants. R-TAC grants should be used for the development of community schools resources and guidance, the dissemination of best practices, and the facilitation of peer networks for all community schools pillars.
Which counties received coordination allocations and how much funding did each county receive?
A substantial sum of $140 million will be allocated to COEs to facilitate interagency coordination. Any county with at least two LEAs that received CCSPP grants will receive a county coordination allocation. The precise funding for each COE is dependent upon the number of community schools funded in the county and the number of pupils served in those schools. The counties will receive at least $200,000 and up to $500,000 annually, over a seven year period.
The first two rounds of allocations have already been dispersed, with nearly all counties receiving allocations. In the first year (2022-23), 41 counties received grants totaling almost $14 million, with an average of $340,000 per county. In the subsequent year, an additional 11 COEs joined the original 41 and received a total of $17 million, averaging $330,000 per county. Over the initial two-year span of the coordination allocation disbursements, the 52 counties have each received between $200,000 and $1 million.
It is noteworthy that six counties—Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Modoc, Sierra, and Tuolumne—did not receive allocations because no LEAs within the counties have been awarded CCSPP implementation grants. Alpine, Mariposa, Modoc, and Tuolumne have each only received a single planning grant for an LEA in their county.
How do the county coordination allocations align with other existing initiatives focused on coordination?
The CCSPP is among several California programs aiming to foster an integrated support system. The coordination allocations are meant to complement existing initiatives that similarly encourage the creation of relationships across local government agencies and nonprofits. In order to avoid fragmentation and duplication, and maximize impact, it is important for the allocations to seamlessly integrate with, and expand on, existing efforts.
An obvious starting point is the interagency structure established by AB 2083, which mandates that every county in California develop and implement a System-of-Care memorandum of understanding (MOU) for foster care involved children and youth. The MOU establishes Interagency Leadership Teams that must include the county child welfare agency, probation department, behavioral health department, office of education, local Regional Center, and tribal partners. The MOU delineates the roles and responsibilities of each entity, and covers aspects like assessment and screening processes, alignment of services, data sharing, and revenue sharing. AB 2083 serves as a safeguard against agencies passing responsibility to each other and leaving a child in need without the services they are legally entitled to.
AB 2083 also established a joint interagency resolution team at the state level to support counties. The team includes the Secretary of California Health and Human Services, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Social Services, State Department of Health Care Services, State Department of Developmental Services, and State Department of Education. The primary role of the team is to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to counties in developing and implementing the MOU. Also, the team makes recommendations to the Legislature, addressing gaps in services and other pertinent issues.
Other California efforts have similarly championed integration at the county-level, although they lack the structure of a backbone organization, as seen in AB 2083. For instance, more than fifty county or tribal Comprehensive Prevention Plans have recently been approved by the state under the federal Family First Prevention Services Act. These interagency plans include Child Welfare Services and Probation agencies, and in some cases also the Behavioral Health Department and school partners. They are intended to deliver early, community-centered evidenced based supports and services to keep children and youth at home and in school. Initiatives like the soon to be enacted Multi Payer School Fee Schedule, sponsored by the Department of Health Care Services, will greatly expand accessibility to services on school sites. The CCSPP dovetails nicely with these other initiatives, as COEs and community schools could be included in Comprehensive Prevention Plans, and Multi Payer School Fee Schedules can help support community schools efforts.
At the state level, the California Child Welfare Council coordinates services for court-involved minors and youth who are at risk of entering the foster care system. Similarly, the California Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Intervention coordinates services for students with disabilities. SB-75 created a competitive grant program to fund partnerships between county mental or behavioral health departments and K-12 schools. The Cradle-to-Career Data System integrates education and job outcome data, linking it to tools that support college and career planning. First 5 California implements an integrated support system for children prenatal through age 5 and their families. Last, the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative fosters relationships with schools and mental health providers.
The essential components of effective integrated support systems
Developing integrated support systems is a complex and messy undertaking that frequently falls short of producing a lasting impact. Nonetheless, decades of nationwide research has provided insight into what it takes to develop effective integrated support systems at scale, highlighting the essential components that contribute to success.
Joint Leadership
Effective integrated support systems bring together leaders of diverse agencies and departments. The collaborative effort should span across government sectors, including, for example, the departments of education, mental health, public assistance, and child welfare. Interagency systems can also bring in organizations from the private and non-profit sectors. The representative of each government agency or organization should have full knowledge of the entity’s resources and authority to make decisions on behalf of the entity. This form of shared leadership requires a commitment to, among other things, building trust-based and high-quality interpersonal relationships among the participants. COEs can build from the Interagency Leadership Teams that already exist through AB 2083 to develop the necessary infrastructure for the CCSPP coordination allocations.
Collective Goals
Government agencies often have diverging, or even competing, goals and priorities. In an integrated support system, agency leaders develop shared goals to guide their work. The participating government bodies collectively try to move the needle on their shared goals and are held jointly accountable for making progress. A common first step in establishing shared goals is to conduct a needs assessment that provides insight into where the coordinating body needs to focus its efforts and prioritize resources. Once a needs assessment has been conducted and corresponding goals are established, a strategic plan should be developed to effectuate those goals. In California, COEs may start by coordinating needs assessments like the Child and Family Services Review and Mental Health Plan Performance Improvement Plan inquiry.
Shared Data
Shared data systems merge new and existing datasets to ease the flow of information across agencies. At the individual level, shared data systems enable service providers to identify needs, set up referrals, and coordinate services for a child and their family. At a systems level, data tracks progress towards the shared goals of the integrated support system and creates a feedback loop for continuous improvement. California’s data systems form a complex maze of information that an integrated support system would jointly navigate and coordinate. The AB 2083 MOU has already established a commitment to shared data that can be built upon for community schools, including the development of a singular release of information form for use by all schools and county systems. Within the System-of-Care efforts, a number of counties are experimenting with a common dashboard of outcomes or outputs.
Aligned Funding
Effective integrated support systems align the array of available funding streams to maximize resources and impact. Often, aligning funding begins with a fiscal mapping of federal, state, local, and private funding streams to help agencies understand where funding is coming from and where funding is going. With a fiscal map in hand, the integrated support system can identify, based on their needs, which funding allocations can be effectively shared, and in what form. For example, the CCSPP legislation, explicitly states that coordination allocations should be used to leverage funding from the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, the California state preschool program, Universal Transitional Kindergarten, universal meal programs, health and mental health supports for pupils and staff, the local control funding formula, and any other available local, state, or federal funds that may facilitate and sustain the community school initiative. In addition to these educationally administered monies, additional value might be found in Mental Health Plans that serve Medi-Cal eligible children or youth. Shared financing is typically done through intergovernmental transfer or cost reconciliation between departments. Again, the AB 2083 Interagency Leadership Team would be the place to begin that exploration around aligned funding.
Youth, Family, and Community Engagement
Meaningfully engaging with youth, families, and community members is critical to developing impactful solutions. There is often a disconnect in experiences and perspectives between public agency leaders and the population they are striving to serve, leading to policies and practices that don’t effectively address needs. State and federal funders increasingly emphasize the importance of genuine engagement, a fundamental aspect of the CCSPP. This engagement can be done in a range of different ways. In-person options include focus groups, community meetings, home visits, parent teacher conferences, town halls, and student and parent advisory groups. Engagement can also happen in virtual formats, like surveys, e-mails, or webpages. No matter the form of engagement, a foundation of trust between government officials and community members is essential to opening the door to deeper dialogue. And all of the different populations in a community should be represented in engagement efforts. Whenever possible, input from community members should be coupled with research and evidence to establish the goals of the integrated support system.
Coordinated Services
Coordinated services seamlessly organize a range of supports to ensure timely access to comprehensive care. Because of their frequent access to children, schools are uniquely positioned to serve as a central hub for children to be connected to services. However, integrated support systems should take a “no wrong door” approach to care where an individual is connected to the appropriate services no matter what agency door they walk through. Intentional and thoughtful collaboration between service providers is necessary to ensure that only one service plan is in place for each child. This requires partners to align service referrals, definitions, roles and responsibilities, technologies, protocols, and diagnostic processes. Again, the AB 2083 MOUs already require partners to articulate agreements on coordinating services and those efforts should be built upon through coordination allocations.
Human Resources
Interagency coordinating bodies with full-time staff members dedicated exclusively to the integration of systems are better able to support a broad scope of work. Staff members are helpful in project managing, conducting research, scheduling meetings, preparing materials, managing communications, and supporting implementation. This essential glue function, which must be effectively and clearly captured in written agreements, serves to reinforce the structure of the interagency work. Dedicated system staff also provide continuity through changes in leadership. As mentioned in the legislation, the CCSPP coordination allocations could be used to hire a county-level community schools liaison that can fill this administrative need and connect the integrated support system to community schools.
Examples of county-level integrated support systems
Some counties serve as commendable models for the development of effective integrated support systems. As previously mentioned, AB 2083 requires California counties to develop Interagency Leadership Teams specifically for foster youth. However, some of those counties have expanded their integrated support system to encompass all children, including Sacramento, Santa Clara, Tuolumne, Ventura, Nevada, and Solano.
Nationally, the Forum for Youth Investment runs a Local Children’s Cabinet Network with other successful examples of county-level integrated support systems. California counties in the network include Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Stockton, and Lost Hills. The Los Angeles County Office of Education, for example, partners with over a dozen Los Angeles county agencies to provide a range of services in community schools—including counseling, mental health education, social services enrollment and case management, parent workshops, after-school programming, and field trips.
In Maryland, a statewide initiative mandates all twenty-four of its counties to establish county-level coordinating bodies called Local Management Boards (Boards). The Boards work to serve the overall vision and goals of the state-level Children’s Cabinet, including reducing childhood trauma, hunger, and homelessness. In return, the state provides funding, training, and technical assistance to help the Boards coordinate agencies and implement programs.
Looking Forward
CCSPP coordination allocations come at an opportune time. The state has recently created or expanded a number of programs aimed at improving health, social, and educational outcomes for children and youth. County-level efforts to improve integration can help CCSPP grant recipients effectively implement integrated support systems at the school site. Years of studies have identified effective practices that will be helpful to counties as they develop their integrated support system.
The education reform landscape is fragmented and school staff struggle to implement the array of new programs required of them. Existing efforts already focused on coordination, such as AB 2083, Comprehensive Prevention Plans, and the Cradle-to-Career Data System, must be built upon through CCSPP coordination allocations. Layering integration initiatives on top of each other, without integrating them, can make service delivery worse, increasing administrative load and decreasing the capacity to help students. Rather than constructing similar initiatives atop one another, we must consolidate and streamline integration efforts to maximize impact, and minimize burden.
Last, the CCSPP legislation provides little directive on how the coordination allocations should be spent, with minimal reporting and oversight requirements. While this post aims to start the conversation, an important question remains: Who will take the lead in providing guidance and technical assistance to COEs? As of this writing, no clear leader has emerged. Hopefully, the recommendations outlined in this post can help shape the implementation of CCSPP coordination allocations and improve the well-being of California’s children and youth.